Apple, Samsung walk away from the negotiating table

With no compromise in sight, a trial will begin in July, 2012.

Despite two days of court-ordered mediation between Samsung and Apple, the two smartphone giants were unable to reach any agreement that might have staved off their impending patent litigation. Though Samsung CEO Choi Gee-sung and Apple CEO Tim Cook were both present for the talks, no compromise could be made, according to a Samsung official who spoke to The Korea Times.

The mediation was ordered by Judge Judy Koh, who is overseeing two federal patent infringement suits between the two companies in the US. Cook had recently expressed a possible interest in settling the dispute between the two companies out of court "if we could get to some kind of arrangement where we'd be assured [they are inventing their own products] and get a fair settlement on the stuff that's occurred."

"I've always hated litigation and I continue to hate it," Cook said during Apple's most recent financial results announcement, but "we just want people to invent their own stuff."

With no settlement reached, the trial is set to begin July 30.

Samsung and Apple have been locked in a bitter legal battle since Apple sued Samsung over patent infringements and trade dress violations in April last year. The dispute spilled over into courts all over the world, including Germany, Australia, and Japan, with Apple and Samsung equally filing suits and countersuits involving a wide range of smartphone and tablet products.

Samsung's complaints largely center on patents considered essential to wireless 3G standards, which are typically encumbered by agreements to license such patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Using the patents in order to gain injunction against Apple has raised the ire of the European Commission, which is investigating Samsung's FRAND patent suits to determine if the actions run afoul of anti-competition laws.

While the legal struggles between the two companies continue, however, Samsung remains one of Apple's primary component suppliers for its mobile products, including the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch.

Not surprised they couldn't reach an agreement. Apple basically wants Samsung to stop selling their most profitable smartphones and tablets, and to take the profits from what they already sold. I doubt Samsung would be suing Apple if it weren't for that (not vindicating them, it's how the patent merry-go-round works).

"While the legal struggles between the two companies continue, however, Samsung remains one of Apple's primary component suppliers for its mobile products, including the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch."

I don't think there's really anything new to say at this point, they've got an intractable legal disagreement, so now it's time for the courts to settle it (that's part of what they're for). I guess the best that can really be hoped for is that it really is a wide ranging and firm decision so that, one way or another, the uncertainty ends and this matter is finished. The Google/Oracle trial has gone pretty fast once it actually go going, so maybe we'll see something similar here. Once the outcome has been legally decided it may at least be useful in determining changes to the law and advocating for them.

Oh, probably worth noting too:

Quote:

While the legal struggles between the two companies continue, however, Samsung remains one of Apple's primary component suppliers for its mobile products, including the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch.

"Samsung" and other chaebols are less unified companies as one might be used to thinking of them and more wide ranging hyper conglomerates. It's pretty normal for divisions to be extremely independent, and see no reason why another separate division's problems should prevent them from cutting good deals.

What would likely happen if Samsung simply just decided to stop supplying Apple with components for it's products? Is Apple entirely dependent on Samsung, or would they likely just go elsewhere?

I think Apple is somewhat dependent on Samsung to reach the kind of volumes it needs for certain components, particularly displays for its mobile products. But to imagine Apple doesn't have some kind of workable plan B in its pocket would be foolhardy. OTOH, Apple writes Samsung's display and silicon divisions something like an $11 billion check annually, so Samsung on the whole probably isn't so quick to tell Apple to eff off.

What would likely happen if Samsung simply just decided to stop supplying Apple with components for it's products? Is Apple entirely dependent on Samsung, or would they likely just go elsewhere?

I think Apple is somewhat dependent on Samsung to reach the kind of volumes it needs for certain components, particularly displays for its mobile products. But to imagine Apple doesn't have some kind of workable plan B in its pocket would be foolhardy. OTOH, Apple writes Samsung's display and silicon divisions something like an $11 billion check annually, so Samsung on the whole probably isn't so quick to tell Apple to eff off.

Yeah, not only would Samsung be tossing away massive amounts of money, there are these picky little things called "contracts". It is a near certainty (because it's totally standard) that all of Apple's supplier contracts, let alone major ones, have every possible exit clause covered to the nth degree. If Samsung "simply just decided to stop supplying Apple with components for it's products," as in unilaterally drop the contract, they would first get completely destroyed in the courts over it. Then they would have to deal with the wider fallout to their entire business model. Supplying components up and down the stack to companies worldwide is a massively important part of the chaebol's overall business. If all those companies have to now start wondering "wait, if some division of Samsung starts competing with me might they suddenly decide to cut me off unilaterally?" it could be devastating longterm.

Now, they might well negotiate much harder for new contracts down the road, or refuse them entirely (although that'd be stupid from a business point of view if it wasn't more profitable and might result in yet another lawsuit depending on how their investors feel about it), but arbitrarily cutting off components which the buyer may have already paid for just doesn't happen.

Maybe they should take their own advice. Much of it is merely derivative work, and now they want it to dead end with them. None of you other guys can derive and new products from the same tree of technologies we used and if you want to derive something new from our product, you can F off. Hey from a business perspective, that makes a lot of sense as you want to shoot for a monopoly, but that doesn't make it any less douche-y.

From science and technological progress point of view Apple will be a dead end for any technologies they touch, or at least it will only have one rail whose pace is set by one company. I can only hope somebody else does invent something completely new and just blows them out of the water, but thing like that rarely ever happen. Like it has been said many times before, the fundamental laws regarding patents are at fault, but I really do not see it getting better before it gets much much worse.

What would likely happen if Samsung simply just decided to stop supplying Apple with components for it's products? Is Apple entirely dependent on Samsung, or would they likely just go elsewhere?

Apple is going to spend between 8 and 10 billion dollars this year, just on LCD panels. While it's a guess, I'd bet that Samsung sees more profit on what it sells to Apple than it does on its own cell phones.

No surprise here today. Apple is infringing FRAND patents which were never offered at FRAND rates (and offered to pay appropriately if those rates were offered), and a few very weak other patents likely worth less tha $1m total in licencing. Sammy is guilty of blatand and ongoing trade dress violations worth well in excess the total amount apple would pay for FRAND licencing even in trebble.

The only way this was going to end, was VERY badly sided against Samsung, to the point any settlement would likely have resulting in apple getting full licence rights, samsung dropping multiple products from the world market entirely and near immediately, and for all sammy's back payments to likely result in a net cash transfer to apple.

Apple's had some weak cases (that they still won) this one is riock solid on their side. Yea, sammy's patents may be strong, but their FRAND value is not, and the violated FRAND rules. Not a single one of apple's patents or trademarks here are so encumbered.

Even the judge's language in the past has almost seemed to suggest Sammy should be the one leading, in fact encouraging the settlements. Also of note, Apple is the home turf company, and though that's not supposed to weigh in at this level, it likely does.

Look, before 2007 all smartphones had a keyboard and a stylus. Android was a Blackberry clone. After the iPhone came out the industry at first dismissed it, but now every smartphone is a slab of glass with a bit mapped touchscreen with physics-based swipes and pinch zoom. Apple didn't invent most of the pieces but they put everything together in a brilliant way and equally important removed the stuff that didn't belong there like a stylus. So yeah, Apple invented the foundational elements of the modern smartphone. Everything else out there today is clearly derivative. Without the iPhone, we would all be using a very different mobile device, and the bar would be quite a bit lower than it is today.

The Kool-Aid is strong in this comments section. "I'd bet that Samsung sees more profit on what it sells to Apple than it does on its own cell phones." Why would they BOTHER making cellphones if that was the case? Doubtless they make entire catalogs full of cheap phones, but their Galaxy range rivals the Apple equivalents in price as well as quality. And apparently Apple thinks they resemble them too much in looks as well. There are only so many ways to make a rounded rectangular slab look. And there are only so many (good) form factors a rectangular touch screen can be used in to make a phone or tablet.Also please stop it with the meme that Android was a Blackberry clone until the iPhone was released. Android development started in 2003, TWO years before Apple started seriously designing the iPhone. Also it was designed to do ANYTHING, rather than just be fitted into a phone, ipod, then a few years later a tablet. That's the reason why Android can be found on a bizarre range of things (like a car stereo) and why it supports so many different resolutions and aspect ratios.

"Also please stop it with the meme that Android was a Blackberry clone until the iPhone was released. Android development started in 2003, TWO years before Apple started seriously designing the iPhone"

Not a meme. A fact. From 2003 until the iPhone was revealed, Android for mobile phones was a Blackberry clone:

That is the primary reason the Android UI is still so sluggish even on more powerful hardware than the iPhone- it's core development was based on a click pad model - it was never intended to drive a fluid touch UI. That was grafted on later.

"Also please stop it with the meme that Android was a Blackberry clone until the iPhone was released. Android development started in 2003, TWO years before Apple started seriously designing the iPhone"

Not a meme. A fact. From 2003 until the iPhone was revealed, Android for mobile phones was a Blackberry clone:

That is the primary reason the Android UI is still so sluggish even on more powerful hardware than the iPhone- it's core development was based on a click pad model - it was never intended to drive a fluid touch UI. That was grafted on later.

I suspect the apparent sluggishness is more complicated than some simplistic user interaction expectations.

That is the primary reason the Android UI is still so sluggish even on more powerful hardware than the iPhone- it's core development was based on a click pad model - it was never intended to drive a fluid touch UI. That was grafted on later.

The engadget photos were published a full month after the Android SDK (with touch enabled) came out. As I mentioned, Android was made to do anything, meaning that it's not quite as optimized for touch as iOS is. There are now Android phones that are totally touch scree and touch + qwerty keypads. There are probably no phones that remove the touch interface entirely because so many lazy developers just do a half-assed port of iOS apps most apps assume the presence of one. Also I'm pretty sure access to google's Android market requires a touch screen as part of the device features.Let's see, the Android SDK was announced in September 2007, the iOS SDK was announced in march 2008. Just because Google was late on the hardware doesn't automatically prove Apple is this great original font of ideas that every other tech companies cribs from. That's just ridiculous. Remember that iOS apps themselves were first conceived of by jailbreakers, before Apple relented and released their SDK (that's a really flattering way of looking at it).

Uh... no. IBM Simon came out in the 90's, was touchscreen, and a smartphone to boot. Predates BB, iPhone, and many others that make the same claim. In fact, the only devices that predate that are the Psalms with data card inserts (those used stylises). Hell, even Motorola had a device that could be used with fingers instead of stylus (stylus was more precise). Besides which, using a stylus or not doesn't change the fact that it's a touchscreen - just that the touchscreen is cheaper. Touchscreens that allow use of fingers have been about for a long time, circa 1970's or so.

Secondly, there are several Samsung, Ericsson, and LG devices that had very similar graphical layouts to the iPhone that came out before the iPhone was ever previewed to the public.

The only thing the iPhone did was create a more effective app store that sold apps at a cost that were affordable. That's not really a definable feature, since Nokia and others had app stores, but it was easier to use because of the technology available (not an invention by any stretch).

The only thing the iPhone did was create a more effective app store that sold apps at a cost that were affordable. That's not really a definable feature, since Nokia and others had app stores, but it was easier to use because of the technology available (not an invention by any stretch).

Apple did not even have said store at the original launch. It only showed up after people used jailbreaking (originally to serve the gray market in Europe and elsewhere) To poke around with the unix internals. When the iPhone first launched, Jobs was jabbering on about web apps.

That is the primary reason the Android UI is still so sluggish even on more powerful hardware than the iPhone- it's core development was based on a click pad model - it was never intended to drive a fluid touch UI. That was grafted on later.

The engadget photos were published a full month after the Android SDK (with touch enabled) came out.

Uh-hunh. So how did they demo the "fully touch enabled from the start" interface - by using the bloody joy-knob for almost every single operation - and those using touch are as jerktastic as the OP said. And all that barely a year after the iPhone was introduced.

Now if that doesn't prove that Android wasn't started as a Crackberry clone, but as a touch based device from day one in 2003, then nothing will.

Uh-hunh. So how did they demo the "fully touch enabled from the start" interface - by using the bloody joy-knob for almost every single operation - and those using touch are as jerktastic as the OP said. And all that barely a year after the iPhone was introduced.

Now if that doesn't prove that Android wasn't started as a Crackberry clone, but as a touch based device from day one in 2003, then nothing will.

It's called proto-typing and demo hardware. Things don't just magically begin to exist when they're shipped to the store you know. Google had touch enabled prototypes out in 2007. Other companies aren't as manically obsessed with secrecy as Apple, and people having a good idea what a product category will look like and act like used to be a pretty common way of doing things until recently. Did you even watch the video?

And what is your deal with the Android UI being "jerktastic"? Who cares? That doesn't prove anything except that maybe Apple is really good at programming a GUI on a mobile device and Google doesn't care as much about GUI polish as they do. And as of roughly the middle of last year, decent Android stuff display none of the "jerktastic"ness you are referring to, because the hardware caught up.

And what is your deal with the Android UI being "jerktastic"? Who cares? That doesn't prove anything except that maybe Apple is really good at programming a GUI on a mobile device and Google doesn't care as much about GUI polish as they do. And as of roughly the middle of last year, decent Android stuff display none of the "jerktastic"ness you are referring to, because the hardware caught up.

Best guess is that Apple keeps the main UI in ram at all times, while Google allows Android to kill the Launcher task if ram becomes tight (personal observation regarding the latter).

Uh... no. IBM Simon came out in the 90's, was touchscreen, and a smartphone to boot. Predates BB, iPhone, and many others that make the same claim. In fact, the only devices that predate that are the Psalms with data card inserts (those used stylises). Hell, even Motorola had a device that could be used with fingers instead of stylus (stylus was more precise). Besides which, using a stylus or not doesn't change the fact that it's a touchscreen - just that the touchscreen is cheaper. Touchscreens that allow use of fingers have been about for a long time, circa 1970's or so.

I doubt I could tell the difference between most smartphones from across a courtroom. There are only so many ways to make a rounded rectangle.

samoanbiscuit wrote:

And apparently Apple thinks they resemble them too much in looks as well. There are only so many ways to make a rounded rectangular slab look. And there are only so many (good) form factors a rectangular touch screen can be used in to make a phone or tablet.

Best guess is that Apple keeps the main UI in ram at all times, while Google allows Android to kill the Launcher task if ram becomes tight (personal observation regarding the latter).

No. Probably just thread priority. iOS prioritizes UI movement over everything else, including UI content updates. That's why you sometimes see the checkerboard pattern in Mobile Safari. Android seems to maintain a more even prioritization, which allows things to continue to occur concurrently even if the UI is forced to stutter a little. As hardware gets faster, this stuttering will probably disappear, but it's a near-term disadvantage that won't be resolved without a deliberate decision by Google to reprioritize.